Why is blogging always in the negative light here? Or is my imagination overworking again? Somehow, the question was never raised, “How long do you sit in front of the computer or laptop before taking a break; lunch, tea, toilet, sleep, etc?”
When a report stated a lady died after taking a flight, the main point of the whole article was that lost of blood circulation (DVT). Meaning, she didn’t walk around during the long haul and just sat there. When a report that someone died from stress at work, the main point was only the person didn’t manage it well.
However, when some report stated that 2 bloggers died from blogging too long, how did they know that they have blogged for 40 years without a break and managed to survive until 60 for one of them? The focus was that blogging is bad. I thought sitting too long without blood circulation was bad? What gives?
Are they so afraid of this new media that is able to churn out the news online faster than print? I thought someone said not to believe all the words being spewed online? There are hoaxes going on and the print media will always check the authenticity of the news before publishing them. So, what is wrong with blogging?
Proudly powered by